note.. To keep the length somewhat more reasonable, I am going to divide up my initial,fairly plain response to the chart you posted and a more detailed look at the data and article.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:abortion stuff not backed up by any evidence.

To start, how about quoting me fully instead of paraphrasing:

PLAYER57832 wrote:to sum, A. that report doesn't truly justify your position the way you think it does. You need to do a more careful check of the definitions used and how they got the data, came to the conclusions.

And…

PLAYER57832 wrote: for you to claim that you have the “high ground” and that you keep posting and I just keep ignoring is a flat out lie. In fact, half of the documents you posted did not even lead to anything. I posted that, but one, in particular went to a totally blank page, another showed data that utterly conflicted with other data… and the source wound up being blank. Yet another actually came to a completely different conclusion than you claimed it did. Go back and read the comments and actually read, follow up on the links you post before you start claiming some moral high ground there.

NOTE -- you posted several documents… the one below is the only legitimate one of the bunch… and, ironically enough, I cited it before you did!!!![/quote]

thegreekdog wrote: If your argument essentially boils down to this: people who are pro-life in the context of abortions that may save the mother's life are wrong, I agree with that.

If your argument is that most women choose to have abortions to save their own lives and not for any other reason, which seems to be what you've typed numerous times, then you're patently wrong. Not mistaken; not misinterpreted; you are WRONG.

I have NEVER, repeat NEVER claimed that all or most abortions are “to save a mother’s life”. In fact, the largest percentage – anywhere from 30-75%, depending on if you start counting from inception, and so forth – are for fully natural causes, aka miscarriages. Beyond that, I have said that I would not personally have an abortion except to save my life or if I knew that my child were going to die or suffer very serious problems. (note, even in that case I add in much more than just ‘to save the mother’s life). For other people, I draw the line far, far wider. I have detailed that so many times that for you to claim otherwise means you are either intentionally lying, have never bothered to actually read what I wrote, despite your lengthy responses or are simply confusing me with someone else. In either case, stop.

Other than that, I say just claiming that women having abortions are just doing so because they are too lazy or stupid or uncaring to really think out their choices and that they really don’t understand what they are doing, which you and others here are pretty much implying, is plain wrong.

See, you use the word “choice” medically when pulling up stats, but then in discussion go to basically “since its their CHOICE, then they can just CHOOSE not to have one.” I say, and the data below explains that things are very far from that simplistic.

Repeat: I have cited this article myself, and I believe before you. I also answered your points the first times you posted it… and the other articles you posted as well.

NOTE.. for anyone else trying to track this down, the above data comes from the last line, under the heading “developed countries” for the US. It is the second chart in the article, roughly halfway through (give or take quite a bit).

thegreekdog wrote:Based on the foregoing statistical evidence (of which you have none), the percentage of women in the United States who have abortions to save their own lives is 2.8%, the second lowest of all reasons.

Yeah, well, since I never made that claim, nor would I, you will have to go find the person who actually said that.

thegreekdog wrote:So, do you acknowledge the above statistics? If not, why not? Can you provide your own statistics? If you can do any of these things, let's take it to the other thread.

Well, gee, since I actually referenced that article a few times myself, not sure why you are even trying to argue that. That said, you posted several other stats and articles that actually WERE either just lacking citations that misrepresented citations or that referred to citations that did not exist.

To get back to the above article, let’s start with this;

Conclusions: Reasons women give for why they seek abortion are often far more complex than simply not intending to become pregnant; the decision to have an abortion is usually motivated by more than one factor. While improved contraceptive use can help reduce unintended pregnancy and abortion, some abortions will remain difficult to prevent, because of limits to women's ability to determine and control all circumstances of their lives.

Beyond that, IMMEDIATELY, you would have to add these 2;Risk to maternal health - 2.8%Risk to fetal health - 3.3%

Each of these can be real and true reasons why an abortion might be very much medically warranted. The first would actually often include “threatens the mother’s life” – though that is arguable. I leave that designation to psychologists who are trained in that field, much as I leave the determination of cancer or other illness up to medical professionals. I am not going to debate THEIR definitions at this point, here.

SO, already we have it boosted to over 8%. Maybe you think 3% and 8% are equivalent, but I don’t!

Then we get into the details – “too young” and “partner does not wish” are situations of coercion, not “free choice”. They include abuse, real medical issues (a 12 year old is just not equipped to have a child) and other cases that you have, in previous threads said might be case where legalization is reasonable. It likely includes cases you would not consider reasonable, but we would have to delve further into the data to determine that. At any rate, these are cases that I would not call real and true optional choices, definitely not for mere convenience (as Nightstrike and others like to pretend)

So, now we have almost 40% of cases that are not truly “free choice” abortions.

Then we get to the other 2 big categories -- will disrupt education or jobs and lack money. I would argue there that even in today’s society, women don’t just have a “free choice” about those things. I mean, to argue on the one hand, in the minimum wage thread, etc, that people who don’t go get better education, etc just don’t deserve to make more and then declare that the pressure to do better, to create a decent financial situation for a child before having one means they are just being selfish is hypocritical at best. FURTHER, its not just the woman who is so impacted. The father will be burdened with child support payments at least until the child reaches age 18 (sometimes more, but that doesn’t matter for this debate). Of course, that is his responsibility, but it also means that his income will be reduced for the next 18 years, and not by a set amount. Again, that needs to happen, but to pretend it is not a real and significant impact. It contributes heavily to the “partner does not agree”, but many women will take their partner’s “well being” into account as well as their own. This might mean not wanting to interfere with HIS educational/financial plans or just knowing that their partner is not going to be much help financially.

These are mostly issues that I saw complicate the “its just free choice” argument. I would not, know many women who would not abort for those reasons, but do I have the right to demand a woman bear a child under those circumstances? That is another issue entirely!

AND… if you go back to my original statements regarding this, and the fact that the right likes to charichature it as “just choice” and to claim that people wanting abortion legalized somehow “like” the idea, the REAL answer is to promote education and better access to birth control – and THAT is, again where my assertion that you are hypocritic comes in, because you are out there saying that employers have every right to deny that type of coverage to women.

thegreekdog wrote: If you can't do any of these things, knock it off with the absurd "women have abortions to save their own lives and conservatives who are against abortion want people to die." It's a ludicrous argument.

Well, there you go again, misquoting me. SOME people, and some of the strongest opponents, such as the Dakota governor, very much DO hold that position AND those people are gaining ground, very much harming women in their wake. For you to claim that is wrong is what is ludicrous, as is your attempt to claim that synopsis the “opposition”… of course there is a range of views on anything.

I happen to remember that you have said you do distinguish between legalization of abortion and the discussion over whether abortion is warranted in any particular case. It just so happens we draw the line differently.

Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 10:28 am, edited 2 times in total.

Some might argue that we already know why a woman obtains an abortion—she does not want the pregnancy—and that we need look no further. However, while at one level almost all abortions result from unintended pregnancies, there can be many steps between acknowledging an unplanned pregnancy and having an abortion. Moreover, many women who have an unintended pregnancy either do not seriously consider having an abortion or do not consider it at all. Some will simply adjust to the pregnancy; for others, an initial desire to discontinue a pregnancy can change because they were either ambivalent themselves or because they acceded to the preferences of others. On the other hand, conditions that were either unknown or were less serious before conception may also change, so that a pregnancy wanted at the time of conception is no longer wanted later on.1

This is important, among other reasons because many people only THINK they know how they would feel when faced with these issues. That goes both ways. I know women and men who thought abortions were “no big deal” until they got pregnant or had a miscarriage, AND plenty of people who thought they could never have an abortion, (or could only have one to save their life, etc) who have rethought that when either they or someone close to them has had to confront some serious issues. That last includes people who did have an abortion, despite earlier thinking they “never would” AND people who did not have an abortion, but who would have one if the situation were repeated.

THAT ALONE, is reason enough to say this is a very, very personal situation that each person has to make with their partner, doctors and clergy and that NO ONE ELSE has any right to interfere with.

The plain fact is that no matter what you “think” you know about how you would decide, feel, act.. you really do not until you yourself have lived through it. The “default” in any such situation .. when you don’t really know what you would do, is to let the individual decide. ONLY when there is real and true overwhelming agreement of harm to others is society allowed to dictate to others what to do. The claim that “abortion IS about another person” is just too vested in unprovable ideas about life and religion, ideas about which people have widely differing views, to have value. PLUS, as said above, only those who have really been through finding out they or someone close’s child has very serious issues, who have had to truly think this through as something other than an esoteric or political issue.. only they really and truly know what they think. Even then, they know what happened in their own specific situation, not what was involved in other people’s decisions.

AND, sadly, I am one of those who had to live through it, as I have detailed in another thread. I had to have an abortion after miscarrying my child… after a series of miscarriages, in fact. If I had not had the procedure, it is unlikely I would have my 2 children today. The thing is, that even though the heart had stopped, I was still classified as “having an abortion’ because it was at 11 weeks, prior to any legal definition of life. Before that time, the only data that is recorded is about the procedure. Any claims about knowing the stats of miscarriages versus abortions prior to that in the US come from things like interviews and other indirect sources, almost no studies truly delineate the exact causes. The few that have are very small and not necessarily representative of the broader population and situations. These facts have been disputed over and over by many in this forum, but sadly many of you (not all, and mostly, at least until recently not greekdog) don’t bother to verify.. you just decide to criticize, as if calling names and making me out to be some kind of monster were just nothing more than “good debate tactics” As if there were no such thing as truth and actually respecting people with differing views.

In no way does my having gone through that mean I fully understand the choices every other person facing issues must make. I could add having close family and friends with highly, highly disabled children, friends and close family who have had abortions (for reasons other than removing a miscarriage), but though all that adds to my knowledge, the fact still remains that this is a very, very, very personnal issue.

Anyway, there is more, for sure, but I have already posted quite a bit. I await a response before posting more.

Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 10:43 am, edited 2 times in total.

Generally I'm against abortion but. I suspect anyone having routine abortions should not be reproducing so it's better for everyone. After the third one they should be put under and sterilized. Save a lot of time doing further abortions.

2dimes wrote:Generally I'm against abortion but. I suspect anyone having routine abortions should not be reproducing so it's better for everyone. After the third one they should be put under and sterilized. Save a lot of time doing further abortions.

Yeah, while I would not agree with the forced sterilization bit (mostly because its too pat an answer, what if someone has serious medical issues repeatedly, but really wants a child-- just as one example) -- and don't really think you were serious about that anyway, I have come to the conclusion that having a child is a priviliage and if you don't want one... you won't do that well by the child just becuase someone else tells you to have it.

Now, that doesn't mean some honest and legitimate counseling won't help change people's minds and result in good outcomes. (by "legitimate", I mean to eliminate the unfortunate practice of some groups to advertise counseling or even abortion services as a cover for pretty harsh scare tactics or lectures). Some of that is appropriate at the time someone wants an abortion-- they absolutely need to know real medical risks, just like any medical procedure (this happens in all legitimate facilities already) AND, I would go further into some counseling about the emotional impacts.. not to try and sway the person one way or another, but to make sure the person has good information (this is touchy, because a lot of what is put out as "counseling" really means "go to any lengths to convince the lady not to have an abortion"). However, MOST of this, most of the education needs to happen well before a woman even becomes pregnant, ideally as part of a comprehensive sex education continum.

The physically weak person would not be subject to the three strike rule.

Its still complicated.

I think allowing free and open access to birth control is a far cheaper and more ready option, but there are certainly exceptions!

The biggest roadblock is that this has been deemed both "cruel and unusual" (unusual in that the option is not offered, say, every hooker up on charges).

There was an NPR article on a woman who started a program to pay women $200 to be sterilized. If I can remember the show, I will try to find the article. It was interesting, including the details of why she did it and how she feels now, plus other people's responses.

The main reason I got into this discussion, actually 2 reasons had to do with both Nightstrike's opinion on insurance coverage and the Democratic versus Republican views on the matter. In this case, the Republican "view" is very hypocritical. ("view" is in quotes because this is a case of offering up a message to attract a group, but not really believing in the issue fundamentally... as shown by their failure to implement other measures that would result in less birth control and abortions, both).

Anyway, it all really gets back into decent and universal mandatory sex education classes in schools. That won't cover all idiots, any more than offering math means we have kids who actually understand algebra (or even advanced addition ). Still, it does go a LONG way.

The thing I don't understand about the "life begins at conception" standpoint is that in the case of identical twins, one sperm fertilises one egg. That single cell then divides as a single organism for up to maybe 1.5-2 weeks after fertilisation, when it splits in two. Some twins split on day 1, some later.

But if there is one life in that single cell at the moment of conception, and then a week later there is a further process by which it becomes 2 lives, then at least one of those lives did not start at conception, it started at the split didn't it? So life doesn't always start at conception?

"This is such a hard thing to explain to someone who hasn't been through it, but when Ronan got his terminal diagnosis, that was the day for me that he died. That was the day of his death for me was Jan. 10, 2011. Not to say that I didn't enjoy being with him through his life, but I felt — I think — the full weight of that loss on the day that he was diagnosed, and when he did die I was relieved that he was released from his suffering, and so that grief is different than it was. It's just, it's qualitatively different, and not that it's not still devastating. It was devastating to watch somebody deteriorating, too, and to know that you couldn't stop it and to worry that there would be more suffering and wanting so deeply to spare him that. ... For me that first year was really the worst, because watching him change and all the hopes kind of dashed and sprinting to the end at the beginning was how I grieved."

2dimes wrote:So you're saying they should have took him out back to end it the day he was diagnosed?

Of course not. On the other hand, if she had had the test to know this early in her pregnancy, I don't think she would have been a terrible person for having chosen an abortion, particularly not if she knew much about the disease (which I don't think she did, because if she knew it ran in her family or even knew much about it, she likely would have been tested). NOR would it mean that this was truly an "unwanted child".

Some people want to argue things like "all life has value" , etc, etc. I agree on one level.. the level that says, no, I certainly would not end this child's life at the point he was diagnosed. However, the point is that that diagnosis WAS a death sentence. Pretending otherwise does no good. As much as she is trying to gain and learn from this, as much as she has, well, if she had the choice to not go through this, would she have chosen that? Even that is not really a fair or honest question, because we all move on from what we experience, even tragedy. Parents who lose a child often have a kind of "survivor's guilt". It is a double-edged guilt.. guilt that you did what you did and guilt that you did not do other things, no matter what your choices. BUT.. parents must look at the options available to them and move forward. Part of what makes those decisions work is understanding and accepting that death is part of life.

That, again, is why those people who want to pretend this debate is about a "right to life" are just plain ignorant, often very intentionally so. Sometimes its really about "right to death". Even under Christianity, maybe particularly under Christianity, death is very far from the worst thing that a child can endure.

Diseases like Tay saches are one, but also suffering abuse at home or just being neglected in foster care(by "the system" more than foster paretnt themselves).

PLAYER57832 wrote:I have NEVER, repeat NEVER claimed that all or most abortions are “to save a mother’s life”.

Okay.

PLAYER57832 wrote:In fact, the largest percentage – anywhere from 30-75%, depending on if you start counting from inception, and so forth – are for fully natural causes, aka miscarriages.

Miscarriages were never illegal and therefore are irrelevant to any discussion of the legality or illegality of abortion. This is the other thing that you do that I have a problem with.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Other than that, I say just claiming that women having abortions are just doing so because they are too lazy or stupid or uncaring to really think out their choices and that they really don’t understand what they are doing, which you and others here are pretty much implying, is plain wrong.

I'm not saying that. See below.

PLAYER57832 wrote:See, you use the word “choice” medically when pulling up stats, but then in discussion go to basically “since its their CHOICE, then they can just CHOOSE not to have one.” I say, and the data below explains that things are very far from that simplistic.

It IS that simplistic. It is absolutely that simplistic. For the vast majority of abortions, women have a choice to have the child or not have the child, the woman's own life and death is not in the picture, neither are miscarriages.

Conclusions: Reasons women give for why they seek abortion are often far more complex than simply not intending to become pregnant; the decision to have an abortion is usually motivated by more than one factor. While improved contraceptive use can help reduce unintended pregnancy and abortion, some abortions will remain difficult to prevent, because of limits to women's ability to determine and control all circumstances of their lives.

So what?

PLAYER57832 wrote:Beyond that, IMMEDIATELY, you would have to add these 2;Risk to maternal health - 2.8%Risk to fetal health - 3.3%

Each of these can be real and true reasons why an abortion might be very much medically warranted. The first would actually often include “threatens the mother’s life” – though that is arguable. I leave that designation to psychologists who are trained in that field, much as I leave the determination of cancer or other illness up to medical professionals. I am not going to debate THEIR definitions at this point, here.

SO, already we have it boosted to over 8%. Maybe you think 3% and 8% are equivalent, but I don’t!

Okay, 8%.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Then we get into the details – “too young” and “partner does not wish” are situations of coercion, not “free choice”. They include abuse, real medical issues (a 12 year old is just not equipped to have a child) and other cases that you have, in previous threads said might be case where legalization is reasonable. It likely includes cases you would not consider reasonable, but we would have to delve further into the data to determine that. At any rate, these are cases that I would not call real and true optional choices, definitely not for mere convenience (as Nightstrike and others like to pretend)

So, now we have almost 40% of cases that are not truly “free choice” abortions.

Yep, this is where we part ways. Too young, partner does not wish (i.e. the dad) are not situations of coercion. While they may (MAY! MAY! MAY!) include abuse. It doesn't matter whether I consider them reasonable. Reasonable is not the term I'm arguing with you about. I'm arguing with you about your insistence that there is something noble about abortion or that abortions are miscarriages or any of the other fucked up shit you use to justify your pro-choice position. Like I said before, most pro-choice folks don't feel the need to use the same justifications you use.

I don't care why women have abortions; they do not have to justify their abortions to me. It's their choice. It's not my business. Apparently you feel the need to justify why women want to have abortions. That's ass backwards. Not only is your argument ass backwards, but your reasoning is completely bullshit. I'm not saying women only have abortions willy-nilly; I'm sure most women have excellent reasons. But they aren't "mother's health" or "fetus health" or "abuse" like you're implying (well, not implying so much as saying).

PLAYER57832 wrote:I have NEVER, repeat NEVER claimed that all or most abortions are “to save a mother’s life”.

Okay.

PLAYER57832 wrote:In fact, the largest percentage – anywhere from 30-75%, depending on if you start counting from inception, and so forth – are for fully natural causes, aka miscarriages.

Miscarriages were never illegal and therefore are irrelevant to any discussion of the legality or illegality of abortion. This is the other thing that you do that I have a problem with.

It is relevant when people start trotting out there are x numbers of abortions and pointing to statistics on why women have abortions, without taking the above into account.

In the US, there is no real data on this prior to 12 weeks. Any data collected, including the study to which you referred, is based on interviews and other imperfect data. Data from other countries may nor may not reflect the same information or have other biases (the study you referenced went into some detail on this, but also referenced individual studies or indicated when information was not available fully).

So, dismissing it is not honest.

Also, in some states there IS legislation that attempts to determine "fault" for some miscarriages, such as if drugs or alchohol are involved.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Other than that, I say just claiming that women having abortions are just doing so because they are too lazy or stupid or uncaring to really think out their choices and that they really don’t understand what they are doing, which you and others here are pretty much implying, is plain wrong.

I'm not saying that. See below.

PLAYER57832 wrote:See, you use the word “choice” medically when pulling up stats, but then in discussion go to basically “since its their CHOICE, then they can just CHOOSE not to have one.” I say, and the data below explains that things are very far from that simplistic.

It IS that simplistic. It is absolutely that simplistic. For the vast majority of abortions, women have a choice to have the child or not have the child, the woman's own life and death is not in the picture, neither are miscarriages.

Like I said, you consider women too stupid or immoral to make these decisions. You apparently are far superior and better able to make these decisions. That would be bad enough, but you do it without truly looking at the data, as I noted above in regards to miscarriages.

It becomes VERY relevant when, at the point abortions are legal, the chance of term success is at best, 30-50%%, and most studies show the true rate to be less than that if you count from the time a pregnancy is determined. (as opposed to 12 weeks).

Conclusions: Reasons women give for why they seek abortion are often far more complex than simply not intending to become pregnant; the decision to have an abortion is usually motivated by more than one factor. While improved contraceptive use can help reduce unintended pregnancy and abortion, some abortions will remain difficult to prevent, because of limits to women's ability to determine and control all circumstances of their lives.

So what?

PLAYER57832 wrote:Beyond that, IMMEDIATELY, you would have to add these 2;Risk to maternal health - 2.8%Risk to fetal health - 3.3%

Each of these can be real and true reasons why an abortion might be very much medically warranted. The first would actually often include “threatens the mother’s life” – though that is arguable. I leave that designation to psychologists who are trained in that field, much as I leave the determination of cancer or other illness up to medical professionals. I am not going to debate THEIR definitions at this point, here.

SO, already we have it boosted to over 8%. Maybe you think 3% and 8% are equivalent, but I don’t!

Okay, 8%.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Then we get into the details – “too young” and “partner does not wish” are situations of coercion, not “free choice”. They include abuse, real medical issues (a 12 year old is just not equipped to have a child) and other cases that you have, in previous threads said might be case where legalization is reasonable. It likely includes cases you would not consider reasonable, but we would have to delve further into the data to determine that. At any rate, these are cases that I would not call real and true optional choices, definitely not for mere convenience (as Nightstrike and others like to pretend)

So, now we have almost 40% of cases that are not truly “free choice” abortions.

Yep, this is where we part ways. Too young, partner does not wish (i.e. the dad) are not situations of coercion. While they may (MAY! MAY! MAY!) include abuse. It doesn't matter whether I consider them reasonable. Reasonable is not the term I'm arguing with you about. I'm arguing with you about your insistence that there is something noble about abortion or that abortions are miscarriages or any of the other fucked up shit you use to justify your pro-choice position. Like I said before, most pro-choice folks don't feel the need to use the same justifications you use.

You are apparently trying to argue with someone else, because that is absolutely not my position.

MY Position is plain and simply that the best way to prevent abortions is to make birth control widely available and to educate adolescents well in sex education. That, alone won’t stop either teen pregnancies or abortions because some people just have different morals.

However, the line there is will forcing these women to carry their children to term be worse, not just for them and society, but even for the child, than letting her have the abortion.

Frankly, that IS where dealing with abused kids matters. I have seen, deal with far, far worse things than death. And, in many cases the abuses wind up not just perpetuating into the next generation (we are incredibly poor as a society in solving this), but thrusting huge expense on society in both time, law enforcement and social services. NOTE.. I am NOT saying that this is “the answer”. Again, the best answer is to teach and, failing that to provide social support. This is not something I take lightly, I actually work with girls around here, not helping them to get abortions, but helping them to deal with their kids.

Abortion is not a wonderful thing. But the damage caused by not having legal abortions is worse than when they are legal. Women have always had abortions, its just that they often died or became infertile as a result.

thegreekdog wrote: I don't care why women have abortions; they do not have to justify their abortions to me. It's their choice. It's not my business. Apparently you feel the need to justify why women want to have abortions. That's ass backwards. Not only is your argument ass backwards, but your reasoning is completely bullshit. I'm not saying women only have abortions willy-nilly; I'm sure most women have excellent reasons. But they aren't "mother's health" or "fetus health" or "abuse" like you're implying (well, not implying so much as saying).

No, that is what you keep claiming I am saying, but it is not at all what I have ever said

Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.